Conference 7.286::dcu

    all I have to say is:
    
    x
    x
    x
    x
    
    some things never change.  Interesting, the vote and who voted for
    what.
    and disappointing.

    I deleted my original note in this spot because, after re-reading the
    minutes from this meeting, I noticed that I missed the section heading
    "Senior Management Resignations" on my first pass.  At least we know
    what the meeting was about.
    
    We've already heard about and commented on the resignations, which were
    publically announced within days of the BoD meeting.  Resignations,
    when sufficient fiery (I didn't see these, I don't know), can stir up a
    number of personnel issues that are best not published.  If it is on
    this basis that the meeting minutes were redacted, I support this
    decision. 
    
    --Pat

    Who had a vote?  If I am a member do I not have a counted vote on
    anything?  I don't understand, I always read about votes yet I have not
    once recieved a ballot, mail msg, paper mail, etc.  I am fairly new at
    DEC and DCU yet my opinion is the name should be change to DCB B=bank. 
    I have lived all around the country and have belonged to various
    finacial institutions, and this is the first time I have seen a "Credit
    Union" put such restrictions on its members ie. owners.   The only
    advantage I've noticed is that rather then drive to a bank on pay day I
    have a bank in the building.  The rates aren't any cheaper than a bank,
    the hours aren't any better than a bank, credit reports (ie. TRW) are
    performed on prospective borrowers, and I don't have any say in how the
    "credit union" operates also just like a bank. 

re:                   <<< Note 919.3 by FABSIX::D_KOPPENHOFE >>>

>    Who had a vote?  If I am a member do I not have a counted vote on
>    anything?  I don't understand, I always read about votes yet I have not
>    once recieved a ballot, mail msg, paper mail, etc.

I'm sorry, but you've confused me. Do you not receive a ballot for directors'
elections just like the rest of us? Are there perhaps other things you
expect to have a vote on? Have you read the DCU bylaws?

re: .3

What's this about a vote???  What vote are you talking about?

re: Mr. Badger

Since the title was Senior Management Resignations, I suspect the Executive
Session concerned personnel matters and as such, by law, must be kept
confidential.  I think you are over-reacting here.

Bob

    Mr Ainsley,
    
    It would not be the first time that I would have been charged with
    'over-reacting'.  If one were to look at the whole meeting, I'm sure
    there might be a 'personnel matter'  to be discussed.  After that,
    perhaps there was opportunity to open up the meeting.  Talk about
    plans?
    
    We still have scum bag savers.  My kids still get treated better at the
    local bank.  We got the bone of free checking.  period.  perhaps 6
    months is too short a time to wait for change.  Can someone suggest a 
    period, that when expired, we will be allowed to talk about precieved 
    shortcomings?  Although in this period of time, one, or some of the 
    real choice-part II candidates were able to change mind(s) about 
    gainsharing.
    
    ed
    

I don't think anyone is asking you to "shut up" about things that are wrong with
the credit union.

It looks to me that the January 7th Board meeting was a specially called meeting
which was called for one purpose only, to discuss personnel issues in executive
session.  This was not the regularly scheduled monthly meeting, which also has
non-personnel issues discussed.

It is interesting that Tom McEachin felt it was not necessary to hold the
meeting under executive session.  It would be interesting to know why he felt
that way...

Elaine

    re .1 etc.:
    
    I was not present at this meeting, but I have seen the unredacted
    minutes.  I can't say anything about what they contain, but I can
    say that if this Board were to indulge the practice of entering
    executive session on one topic in order to hide discussion of some
    other topic, they would hear from me loud and clear!
    
    If I ever feel moved to say such a thing, I believe you would see 
    it in the Supervisory Committee report, which is *not* delivered
    in executive session.  Quite the contrary, Chairman Phil is very
    determined that the SC report should be fully reflected in the minutes.
    
    Speaking of the SC, I believe that anyone who feels a compulsion to
    act as a watchdog over the DCU Board should volunteer to serve on
    the SC.  Watching the Board isn't all the SC does -- we are also
    responsible to ensure a proper audit is done, among many other things.
    But watching what the Board does is an important part of it.  All
    SC positions will be up for grabs at the end of April.  In my book,
    those who criticize the DCU out of concern for the DCU should be
    willing to volunteer to help fix the things they are criticizing.
    
    	Regards,
    	Larry
    
    PS:  re .2:  Good show, Pat!  One of the nice things about notes is
    that it gives us a chance to literally retract our words if we decide
    after the fact that we spoke hastily.  I've used this feature myself
    on occasion, and I'm always happy to see examples of others who are
    not just prepared to risk stating opinions, but who are also prepared
    to publicly change their opinions in the light of new information.  LS

RE: Note 919.7 by CADSYS::RITCHIE

>It is interesting that Tom McEachin felt it was not necessary to hold the
>meeting under executive session.  It would be interesting to know why he felt
>that way...

Having watched Tom and his voting pattern, I would say he votes in a
non-intuitive way.  In many ways, it makes no sense.

I initially thought, "Good for you, Tom!  Way to stand up for the right
thing.", then I thought about his voting history, which made me change
my mind to, 'What is up Toms sleeve, or am I missing something?'.

At this point in time, Tom has not proven that he would vote for more
public communication, so there must be another reason.  What?  I hope he
tells us.

	- mark

re: .6

I only called you Mr. Badger in my previous posting because I forgot your note
number and that you have a shorter first name than I do.

I'm not telling you to shut up,  I just don't understand why you made the
comment you made in .1  The .7 and new .2 replies say it as well as I could.

Bob